Timeline for How was Skynet created in the original timeline?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
25 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 16, 2020 at 9:31 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Feb 4, 2019 at 13:37 | comment | added | Liesmith | I think it's a flawed assumption to say "it's a causal loop, so it must have always been that way". Consider that the timeline we saw might not be the first change, or even the thousandth. The timeline is now a stable causal loop, but the first dozen loops could've all been very different. Eventually, a sequence of events occurs that as an effect equal to its own cause. | |
| Dec 21, 2015 at 8:04 | comment | added | Valorum | For the record, the existence of the photo and the fact that the Terminator is looking for a very specific injury on Sarah's leg (ironically caused by her final confrontation with the Terminator) would strongly imply a 'closed loop' | |
| Jul 13, 2015 at 16:21 | comment | added | Roman Reiner | If you are confused by this don't watch "Predestination" | |
| Jul 10, 2015 at 2:07 | comment | added | Wad Cheber | @phantom42 - Your argument seems to be "Kyle couldn't have always been John's father, because he couldn't have always been John's father". Your argument, therefore, is in itself, a causal loop. | |
| Jul 6, 2015 at 2:22 | comment | added | user1027 | @Richard If Cyberdyne ever created Skynet independently of a bootstrap paradox, then that means Terminator is already (at minimum) the 3rd timeline. The timeline that Kyle and the Terminator come from is not your supposed 'original' timeline, it is one where events similar to the movie played out. The timeline they came from had a Sarah who was attacked as she was in this movie, and so she prepared herself and John for the war. Terminator shows us a causal loop, per its opening text. | |
| Jul 5, 2015 at 14:44 | comment | added | Valorum | @keen - Since Cyberdyne already existed as a computer research/ defence establishment before the events of T2, I'm very much of the opinion that they invented Skynet on their own the first time around and then created a improved version with the additional input of the terminator chip the second time around. That explains how the 2nd timeline and third timeline Skynets have access to more and more advanced technology each time around. | |
| Jun 18, 2015 at 6:12 | comment | added | Petersaber | Time isn't necesserily linear. Think of it as a stream that exists all at "once". It just updates constantly, all at "once". | |
| Sep 12, 2013 at 15:41 | comment | added | flq | @phantom42 Terminator's underlying theory of time travel is a lot more consistent than BTTF's one. Terminator is a prime example for a blockworld theory. Each point in time is like a slice through a block. There is no present. Things may move back and forth and all observable causalities in the blockworld are consistent in themselves. BTTF mixes alternate realities with ideas of blockworld theories (like him almost disappearing while playing guitar even though his timeline should be unaffected) - it's quite a mess. | |
| Sep 12, 2013 at 5:03 | history | edited | user1027 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
More detail!
|
| Sep 11, 2013 at 21:10 | history | edited | user1027 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Kyle's flashbacks, not John's.
|
| Jun 22, 2013 at 4:03 | comment | added | Andres F. | @phantom42 Pretty much what Keen says. Keep in mind we are talking about a work of fiction where backwards time travel is possible. And this is a philosophical stance: the loop is predetermined. The past and the future are set in stone; it's only the characters that perceive one happening "before" the other. I think they were going with this in the first Terminator, and later changed it to allow for sequels. Regardless, I prefer to believe it's an immutable loop; in my mind, its drama resonates better. (BTW, this isn't what I think about the real world) | |
| Jun 22, 2013 at 2:28 | comment | added | user1027 | @phantom42 You're thinking linearly, that the present moves forward, and the only thing that's in stone is the past. If instead, the future already has happened, irrespective of the characters' current present (i.e. the future, past, and present have 'happened', they cannot be changed), then the events in the future can be the cause of things in the past. Which is a causal loop. The things in the future get the same permanence and validity as the things in the past. With time travel, this possibility can be explored. | |
| Jun 22, 2013 at 0:38 | comment | added | phantom42 | Nothing prevents the loop from having always existed except that it requires the future having already happened at least once before so that John could send back Reese. | |
| Jun 21, 2013 at 19:42 | comment | added | Andres F. | +1 I fully support this answer. I also think it makes The Terminator a more interesting and elegant film. I love the idea of closed causal loops. Nothing prevents the loop from having always existed in its present form. The "no future but what we make" line is an addition from T2. It was necessary from the point of view of sequelitis, but it doesn't improve the original movie's plot in any way. | |
| Jun 21, 2013 at 17:59 | comment | added | user1027 | @phantom42 Causal loops are always causal loops, you're starting from an incorrect premise of "it can't have always been one." They have no start or end, that's what makes them. | |
| Jun 21, 2013 at 17:56 | comment | added | Kyle Jones | +1 The original timeline had to have been a causal loop. How could John Connor have become a messianic figure otherwise? As depicted he was no genius or natural leader of men. What he had that no one else had was information from the future and that information made him effective against the machines. People followed him because of that effectiveness, or died wishing they had. Pretty soon all you'd have left were believers in the heroic myth of John Connor. | |
| Jun 21, 2013 at 17:05 | comment | added | DVK-on-Ahch-To | John... I AM your father. | |
| Jun 21, 2013 at 16:40 | comment | added | phantom42 | I get that it becomes a causal loop, but it can't have always been one. | |
| Jun 21, 2013 at 15:52 | history | edited | user1027 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 104 characters in body
|
| Jun 21, 2013 at 14:52 | comment | added | user1027 | @phantom42 BTTF is irrelevant, since it doesn't tell a story that revolves around a causal loop. | |
| Jun 21, 2013 at 14:51 | comment | added | phantom42 | Think of it in terms of Back To The Future. The original 1985 - where Marty's family is poor/unsuccessful is the original Terminator timeline. Prior to the introduction of the Delorean, Jennifer and George met when George got hit by the car - that was the original BTTF timeline. Kyle/Marty get sent back and change the timeline. The difference is that we never learn about the unaltered Terminator timeline (in the movies, at least). | |
| Jun 21, 2013 at 14:51 | comment | added | user1027 | @phantom42 Sure there was, it was sent back in time by the Skynet that was created from the remains of the Terminator that was sent back. There was no 'first time', no 'original timeline' where this did not happen. It always happened; that's the point of the story. | |
| Jun 21, 2013 at 14:46 | comment | added | phantom42 | In the original timeline, Cyberdyne may have created Skynet, but the first time it occurred, there was no Terminator to salvage and Kyle had not yet been sent back to protect/impregnate Sarah. | |
| Jun 21, 2013 at 14:39 | history | answered | user1027 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |